Jul.27

electoral-vote.com

Dem 47

   

GOP 53

DNC Rules Committee Picks Order of 2028 Primaries

Democrats are in array in Maine, but in disarray in DC. The DNC is working out the primary schedule for 2028 and competing factions are up in arms. Black voters want South Carolina to go first. Latino voters want Nevada to go first. The idea is that whoever wins the first or second nominating contest will get the nomination. That is not always the case, as shown by this history:

Much of the time the eventual nominee won at least one of the first two events, but let's not get cause and effect mixed up. Sometimes there is a very strong nominee, like Al Gore in 2000, and so naturally he won both state events. But he won them because he was already very strong. He didn't get the nomination because he won Iowa and New Hampshire.

Nevertheless, South Carolina's DNC members and New Hampshire's both wanted their state to go first. Last week, the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee, came up with a schedule to allow six states to hold a primary before Super Tuesday, March 7, 2028. Here is the schedule:

Is South Carolina happy now? Yup. For the moment. Assuming this schedule comes to pass (though keep reading), South Carolina Democrats, 60% of whom are Black, will get to pick the nominee from Kamala Harris and Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), right? Not exactly. In truly contested primaries, which 2028 will be, the first state tends to eliminate the also-rans rather than picking the winner. In reality, South Carolina might well have been better off staying in the #3 slot, where it could choose among the serious candidates, rather than just winnowing the chaff.

The mix of states is noteworthy. Three of the states are on the East Coast (SC, NH, and VA). Two are Western states (NV and NM). Only one state (MI) is from the middle of the country. One can also ask: "Why Virginia?" What makes it special? Why not neighboring North Carolina, which is a swing state? A candidate who wins Virginia can brag: "I can win deep blue states." Good for you. Being able to say you won North Carolina would be a much stronger recommendation.

Now all we need is for the full DNC to ratify it and we have a schedule, right? Well, no. That's not how it works. States run primaries. Parties run caucuses. The intention was to have all of these be primaries. But primary dates are set by state law. In South Carolina and New Hampshire, the Republicans hold the trifecta. Are they going to set their primary dates to please the Democrats? Don't bet on it. Of course, the DNC could decide to hold caucuses instead of primaries, but the parties pay for caucuses and the DNC is broke. In Nevada, the Democrats control the legislature but the governor is a Republican. If he is reelected in November, then Nevada is also unlike to play ball with the Democrats. If Aaron Ford (D) is elected governor, then problem (probably) solved. In Michigan, control of the legislature and the governor's mansion is up in November. Only in New Mexico and Virginia are the Democrats certain (or nearly certain) to run the show next year.

New Hampshire is a special problem since state law says it has to go first. How is the DNC going to make sure none of the ambitious candidates run there to get a jump on the others? The DNC could threaten to keep them off the stage for debates if they file, but what if the New Hampshire secretary of state just compiles the ballot on his own, listing all the candidates without regard to whether they want to be on the ballot? Then what?

Having South Carolina, with its heavily Black Democratic electorate, go first may pose a problem for some of the candidates. Pete Buttigieg knows that many Black voters do not approve of homosexuality. He might just visit the state and Nevada a couple of times and then focus mostly on virtually all-white libertarian New Hampshire. Other candidates who don't think they will do well with Black voters in a primary may also drop in to show the flag a couple of times, but mostly campaign elsewhere. The whole stunt of putting South Carolina first could backfire if many of the candidates de facto barely show up. Then winning won't mean as much.

One thing the DNC is proud of is how diverse the pre-Super Tuesday electorate will be compared to 2020. Among other things, the 2028 pre-Super Tuesday electorate will have:

• 4.6 million Black voters in the early states (up from 1.8 million)
• 4.2 million Latino voters in the early states (up from 1.8 million)
• 1.4 million AAPI voters in the early states (up from 500K)
• 370K Native American voters (up from 90K)
• 14 million noncollege grads (up from 6.3 million)
• 2.8 million kids (18-24) (up from 1.2 million)
• 1.1 million union members (up from 400K)
• 2.1 million veterans (up from 900K)

Of course, there are simply more voters this time, since two large states have been tacked onto the end, after the fab four. Nevertheless, if the exit polls are processed fast enough, by Super Tuesday it should be clear how the various demographic groups line up.

The planned Republican sequence is probably the usual one: Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina. However, South Carolina might be willing to move into the #3 slot because all Republicans in the state are white and South Carolina is a surefire win in November whereas Nevada is a crapshoot.

The New York Times has an article listing 60 potential candidates for both parties combined. It is pretty comprehensive, but history shows that people not on anyone's radar 2 years in advance sometimes pop up. Many will be winnowed in the invisible primary next year, when they discover the donors don't like them. The thing that stops nearly all candidacies is that the money never materializes or dries up. It almost never happens that a candidate says: "On second thought, I wouldn't be a very good president, senator, etc." (V)